Mountains of rock become grains of sand to be once again welded as rock. The cycle is both perpetual and necessary. Likewise ideas must be broken down periodically into their fundamental elements to be reassembled as sound pillars of guidance and virtue. The cycle of men is like that of sand.

Friday, March 31, 2006

The finalists are up at Radioblogger in Duane's impromptu photoshop contest flogging Hugh Hewitt's new book, "Painting The Map Red." Sadly our entry was not among those selected for voting, and that is of course a travesty, as you can well see. The esoteric message of the image we submitted was both brilliant and profound. The new Syndrome abandons all other weapons in its quest for world domination, save the most powerful new weapon of all.

Afterall, Hugh...

'... We are your biggest fans!'

In light of this aggregious humliation, we nevertheless encourage or readers to purchase the book. And we would at this time, like to forward our endorsement of the second best entry in the contest... that would be Okieboy's, Dean Screamer. We encourage you, therefore to go to Radioblogger's site now and vote for DB's entry. Then go to Amazon and buy the book.

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Most episodes of global climate change, noted in the geomorphological record of the Earth can be correllated with various geological and astronomical events... axial precession, solar variations, volcanic eruptions, and asteroid impacts.

The Tunguska Event, for instance, occurred near present day, Evenkia Siberia at at 7:17 AM on June 30, 1908 and involved the possible impact with the Earth of a extraterrestrial object. Most theories presume the object to have been a large asteroid, or small comet. Some have even posited a quasar or errant fragment of anti-matter. Whatever the source, the resulting explosion is commonly believed to have been between 10 and 15 Megatons. It decimated over 2,000 square kilometers, felling an estimated 60 million trees, while ejected enormous amounts of dust and material into the Earth's atmosphere. The blast was heard and felt hundreds of miles away, lighting the horizon, breaking glass, and knocking people off their feet.

Yet for all of its destructive power, the remote location of impact meant that it took nearly 20 years for investigators to reach the site. There they found a radial region of scorched earth and flattened trees extending 50 kilometers across. No crater was observed however. Yet curiously, many trees near the center of the zone remained upright, suggesting an atmospheric impact, rather than a deep one similar to the Chicxulub event, albeit much smaller in size and effect.

Noting that climatic temperatures, are more significantly effected by minute changes in atmospheric water vapor, than by much larger volumes of so-called 'greenhouse' gasses like Carbon Dioxide, Professor Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences submits that recoerded changes in water vaporare not affected by human activity. He theorizes that an enormous natural phenomenon is the most likely culprit.

As such, Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km). The Tunguska Event was just such an event, and coincides with the period of time during which global temperatures appear to have been rising the most steadily - the twentieth century. There are many hypothetical mechanisms of how this mesosphere catastrophe might have occurred, and future research is needed to provide a definitive answer.

Dr. Shaidurov's theory does not provide conclusive evidence that a major event like that of 1908 is the cause of a modern global warming trend. Nor does it suggest that any trend toward higher temeratures in itself is either real or unusual. What it does however, is offer an extremely credible alternative to the popular wisdom of our age... that the activities of Man, in his quest for progress, are tipping the balance of the Earth's environment toward irreparable destruction. There are many real mechanisms of catastrophe at work both in hell and heaven, capable of doing that, in spite of Man...... and in the blink of his eye.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

I was sad to see that the Dixie Chicks could only muster a #36 debut with the new, and unrepentant single, “Not Ready to Make Nice.” This is a sad re-birth for a talented group that had creamed the charts with Wide Open Spaces (album and single), “Cowboy Take Me Away,” “There’s Your Trouble,” and the like. No doubt this debut was impacted by Natalie’s careless anti-war, anti-Bush remarks three years ago. They are sadly learning the hard lessons of capitalism AND entertainment…the market place decides, and don’t s__t where you eat.

The fact that they remain committed to their three year old stance, means that they will continue to suffer in the market place. Remember the Sony lobby being jammed with “returned” DC CDs? Who can calculate how much revenue they have lost, and will continue to lose, as many people like myself, will still not buy their albums, no matter how much they enjoy the music. Their highest chart-topper prior to this, and since their March 2003 comments made it to an earth shattering #44.

When was the last time you heard the DCs on the radio? DCs...get used to being bottom feeders, Americans have a long memory when troops are dying in the field. Think before you open your pie hole.

Jane Fonda Misses the Bus

I scoured both the news and the travel sections today looking for an opportunity to get on Jane Fonda’s Vegetable Fueled War Protest Bus, but as the month end looms, I fear she will not make good on her promise to “come out” and protest the Iraq War. Hmmm…was the timing of her anti-war travelogue announcement disingenuously designed to sell more of her books? A book (My Life So Far) that she just happened to be pushing at the same time. An obvious attempt by Janie to grab 14 more minutes of fame before her plasticized persona is forever forgotten, and never missed the American public.

Did I say plasticized? Just when we thought her book tour would drive her into the sunset, she grabs for a 13th minute of fame with an anti-plastic surgery campaign. No kidding. This is like a fisherman who has limited out on opening day, asking the game warden to close the lake so that others can't fish. Seems to me that since she has gotten hers, she is trying to eliminate her sixty something competition by cutting off the plastic surgery option for others. Sorry, maybe “cutting off” wasn’t a great choice of words. Life must be tough in the sixties dating world.

I really think that this loathe-able narcissist should do us all a favor and …shut up. She is no more relevant today than BetaMax. Shut up AND go away.

Islam the Peaceful Religion

Luckily for Abdul Rahman, Islam…the peaceful religion, has somehow intervened to spare him from the death sentence. Phew, just in time. Rahman a serial murderer, rapist and adulterer…ooooops, sorry…a convert to Christianity, was being held in a death penalty case, simply because he had converted from Islam to Christianity. Heinous crime.

The moderates of Islam will need to start gaining preeminence at the podium if Islam is to ever integrate into Western civilization. Westerners will never understand, nor tolerate the harsh and uneven application of Islamic laws. The grossly inappropriate criminalization of a deeply personal choice will never be accepted amongst modern cultures, and will always be a barrier to compatible cultural integration between Christians and Muslims…unless the Muslim moderates gain a voice in the world of Islam. Do not fear, it is not yet a crime against Islam to be a moderate, and it only takes courage to speak your mind.

Portland City Commissar Randy Leonard extended an invitation to Schumacher Furs to leave the downtown district. The invitation comes on the heels of an escalating protest in front of the Schumacher Furs retail store in downtown Portland by some rat-hugging PETA ideo-idioclones who have taken it upon themselves to damage a privately held, legally run business. And the brilliant Leonard thinks the solution is for the Schumachers to leave town.

Another pathetic commentary on the state of affairs in Portland…the suave politicalnik, Central Precinct Commandant Dave Benson came up with the entirely democratic proposition of moving the Schumachers…

“Central Precinct Cmdr. Dave Benson said the idea he'd floated about relocating was one of several in an effort to solve the Schumacher problem. He believes locating in a private mall would better protect the retailer from protests."We're just trying to referee this as best we can," Benson said. "Certainly I have a concern that it may impact not only Mr. Schumacher's business but the business downtown. We want to keep downtown a healthy, energized business community."How about we disperse the protesters, and allow the legal, capitalistic enterprise of fur selling continue. That is the democratic, legally based solution. If the Schumachers are forced out, who is next…the Coach counter at Nordstroms, the meat counter at Safeway, the Portland Zoo, Bob’s trout farm?

If this city wants to be known as anything more than a collection of kooky protesters, then the city must step up and protect legal commerce wherever and however it occurs. Allowing the protesters to push businesses out of the downtown area on their ever-changing whimsical protest agenda will be the first step in Portland’s Urban Renewal for the 21st Century Program…first scare off all the businesses, then let the downtown become a ghost town and a haven for druggies and protesters, then raise money to revitalize the city. Nice plan.

The city has a responsibility here to support the taxpaying business. The city should ensure that the protesters have their say. But Portland also needs to ensure that the Schumachers are not harmed by the idiocy of the ferret huggers. Update: I dropped my spoon into my Cocoa Puffs this morning when I found myself on the same side of this story as the Oregonian. Either I had awakened in the middle of an eerie Twilight Zone episode, or the Big O had finally gotten some common sense in their editorial room.

"The city commissioner was building on the anti-business reputation Portland City Hall has been working hard to earn over the past couple of years, even if he and other city officials won't acknowledge it."

I wiped the milk off my face, slapped myself twice, and double checked that I still had my GOP precinct card. I am hoping that this signals a move towards presenting a balanced view of local needs, and that it is also precursor to an end of the shilling for the ridiculous and ultra-liberal agenda usually pushed by the Big O.

The Dems announced a plan this week to solve our problems in Iraq, and I can’t find it. I’d think that it would be readily available for all to peruse, so that the detail could be scoured, and the praise and critique could begin. But I can’t find it. Is it the Dick Durbin Plan? The Zbigneiw Brzezinsky Plan? I have Googled, and Yahoo’d until the letters have come off my keyboard, and I can’t find the Rosetta Stone of strategic brilliance…help. Please send a link in the comment section if you can find it.

Meanwhile, I’ll focus my efforts on finding the missing Stratego games, they may prove more valuable.

That’s the way my morning news said it, anyway. Sure, it is great news that American reporter Jill Carroll was released by her captors. And she made a big deal out of how nicely she was treated by her captors. The Soundbite Media subtext, then, is that “those insurgents really are nice guys after all. So why are we still there killing them?” Listening to the giddiness in the Soundbite Media, you’d think that she was released simply out of the goodness of their hearts.

Let’s get something straight. In both politics and warfare in regards to audience, nobody does anything simply out of the goodness of their hearts. There is a strategy behind everything. Just as with politics in business, like your company making a big deal out of switching to 100% recycled paper on their letterhead, releasing hostages or prisoners during wartime always contains an element of selfish strategy.

Some might think me cynical for having such a view. But having witnessed too many Selfless Acts of Social Conscience nullified by the quest for good Public Relations, I’ve become a little jaded. The minute one begins to analyze how the public will view a selfless act is the minute that one’s action loses its true selflessness. But I digress – selflessness has nothing to do with why Jill Carroll was released.

Jill Carroll was released simply because keeping her hostage was no longer of value to the people that were keeping her. Maybe the cost to feed her became too much of a burden. Why didn’t they just behead her then? Maybe they felt it unmanly to behead a woman. Maybe they treated her well because they actually maintained the element of Islam in their beliefs that reinforced a respect for women. Maybe it’s Stockholm Syndrome.

The most likely reason for releasing her is a calculation of the political, and therefore strategic, benefit. In other words, they want to make nicey-nicey with you, the American public, to prove to you how noble and nice they are and how evil the American Military and their President are. This is called Information Warfare – strive to make things appear to be the opposite of what they actually are. “But doesn’t this Information Warfare thing apply to the American Military as well?” Yes, actually, it does. But keep in mind that an American Soldier is strictly forbidden from blackmailing the press with death threats, while the Islamic Militant seems to be taking advantage of that force multiplier pretty well. Having no problem killing civilians makes it so much easier to be an effective terrorist – you can kill (or not kill) whoever you want, depending upon what will best advance your agenda.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Suppose that you are an astronaut whose spaceship gets out of control and crashes on an unknown planet. When you regain consciousness and find that you are not hurt badly, the first three questions in or mind would be: Where am I? How can I discover it? What should I do?You see unfamiliar vegetation outside, and there is air to breathe; the sunlight seems paler than you remember it and colder. You turn to look at the sky, but stop. You are struck by a sudden feeling: it you don't look, you won't have to know that you are, perhaps, too far from the earth and no return is possible; so long as you don't know it, you are free to believe what you wish--and you experience a foggy, pleasant, but somehow guilty, kind of hope. You turn to your instruments: they may be damaged, you don't know how seriously. But you stop, struck by a sudden fear: how can you trust these instruments? How can you be sure that they won't mislead you? How can you know whether they will work in a different world? You turn away from the instruments.Now you begin to wonder why you have no desire to do anything. It seems so much safer just to wait for something to turn up somehow; it is better, you tell yourself, not to rock the spaceship. Far in the distance, you see some sort of living creatures approaching; you don't know whether they are human, but they walk on two feet. They, you decide, will tell you what to do.

You are never heard from again.

This was offered for consideration to cadets in 1974 as the opening of a Commencement speech delivered by Ayn Rand to the Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point. It has since come to be titled, Philosophy: Who needs It?

Last week, the media was busy chewing on the notion that it's ideological bias was affecting the accuracy and honesty of its reporting on the situation in Iraq. In a post entitled, "Toothpaste on a Cavity... ", I made note of recent, seperate on-air exchanges involving Conservative commentators Laura Ingraham and Hugh Hewitt where each highlighted and exposed the biased nature of reporting that was both fueling the insurgency and misrepresenting the value of coalition efforts weighed against the continued violence. As discussed, facing increased public frustration with their coverage, the Mainstream Media was clearly attempting to fortify their positions and defend their seeming lust for failure; to little avail. One of the MSM's more agressive defenders at the time, facing off two nights in a row on CNN against Hugh Hewitt , was Time Magazine's Bagdhad Bureau Chief, Michael Ware. He argued, in no uncertain terms, that the situation in Iraq looks negative throught the MSM lens of coverage because the situation there is nothing less than a catastrophe inflicted on the world by the Bush Administration. To Ware, this is not bias, but fact conveyed by he and Time Magazine.

This week, Hugh Hewitt extended Mr. Ware a gracious invitation to continue the discussion on his radio program. Given much more time for a direct exchange, the conversation was far more enlightening regarding his position, and his reporting. Radioblogger has posted the audio and transcripts for extended review. For the purpose of this discussion, and given the Rand offering at the beginning of this post, my interest in Mr. Ware's contributions are limited to his approach to her three fundamental questions with regard to Iraq.

Where am I?In the Iraq theater amidst violent conflict, Ware travels between dueling entities and submits his experiences as information. Is he in a war? Is he in a civil war? Is he in a righteous war? Righteous for whom? What is the fighting about? Is he on a side? If so, whose? If not, why not? Does he have an interest in victory? For whom?

These questions and many others like them, must be addressed by Ware at some level in order for him to lend any degree of comprehension as to the conditions in which he has placed himself. Thus he may be a credible purveyor of that information. And yet, as he expresses himself publicly, he provides no discernable clue to having performed any aspect of this fundamental analysis to determine where he is both in space and in time, contextually speaking. Admittedly, he is not interested in that information, or any information that might help answer the question. If he is in a war for instance, how does it compare with other wars?... like World War II perhaps. On this he evades,

"Well, I don't know. I wasn't around in World War II, so I'm not sure I'm really in a position to determine. All I can talk to about are the circumstances that have presented themselves to me, and the wars I've found myself in. "

And yet, knowledge on that and other Wars is quite well documented, and able to be learned in order for him to comprehend exactly where he is. Given the possibility that this may not be like any war he has ever experienced, information on other wars might be of value. But, like the wayward astronaut, "so long as you don't know it, you are free to believe what you wish--and you experience a foggy, pleasant, but somehow guilty, kind of hope."

In Ware's case, its a guilt-free type of ignorance he employs, from which he conjures myth peddled as fact for the currency of glory, mortgaged on the blood of others.

How do I know it? Even as he conveysa sense of understanding of the conditions on which he reports, Ware provides no means by which to qualify his assessments of the situation at hand. Arbitrary observations are rendered as abstract evaluations, with no objective standard provided by which to measure value. Knowledge is abandoned to whim, when historic facts could easily provide an instrument for conceptualization. When challenged otherwise, again Ware slips behind the veil of protective uncertainty,

"All I can tell you that life here right now is extraordinarily difficult, and there's a lot of killing going on, and there's a lot of deprivation going on, and to be able to compare that to something I never saw is a bit difficult for me...... All I can tell you about is what I see, and what I experience. "

Cognitive input becomes his primary basis for action, and emotion the tool of his measure. As with the astronaut, concepts are feared, by Ware. Afterall... "How can you be sure that they won't mislead you? How can you know whether they will work in a different world?"

And what if they negate his preferred reality?... or compromise his protective veil?

What should I do?Sharing no allegiance with any party to the conflict, Mr. Ware presents a valueless picture of human aggression. Its one in which players struggle meaninglessly for supremacy against one another for objectives that have no significance and principles that are arbitrary. Seemingly uneffected by consequence, Ware can roam freely among the creatures of the engagement sketching abstract images of their immediate condition trusting that regardless of the outcome of this particular situation, he will remain uneffected.

And like the Astronaut, he is never heard from again.

Michael Ware himself is not the problem. He is merely symptomatic of the affliction that infects the reporting of conditions in Iraq. One would be absurd to believe that intelligent professionals like Michael Ware, or any of the other media voices engaged in reporting on the ongoing battle for Iraq are operating in a conceptual vaccuum... or that, as Ware tries to claim, they have no stake in the political process whatsoever. Whether they know it or not, believe it or not, they all have a stake in the outcome... Ware included.Further in her 1974 address, Rand reminds us that Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence,

"You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational conviction--or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.

As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation--or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified whishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown. "

In some cases, many like Ware have simply chosen most unwisely, offerings from the junk heap, the consequences of which might ensure catastrophe. For in their abandon they imagine the subjective nature of virtue and depravity equally defining the creatures of the struggle... damning the benevolent, while embracing the monster that means to devour them as well. Absent is the reasoning to attain the truth that Michael Ware may never posess,

"The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest--as the armies of other countries have done in their histories--only as an instrument of a free nation's self-defense, which means: the defense of a man's individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task. No other army in the world has achieved it..."

Save one.

Philosophy.... Who needs It? Apparently Mr. Ware and many of his MSM media colleagues do... in order to continue to live on Earth.

Major MikeWar reporting changed forever when Walter Cronkite reported that the Vietnam War was lost after the 1968 Viet Cong/NVA Tet Offensive. It is worth posting in its entirety, so that its influence can be readily seen in the war reporting of our time.

“Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realizationthat they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that-negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.”

Nice editorial. Poor reporting. Khe Sanh did not fall. Viet Cong and NVA casualties far exceeded those of US and South Vietnamese troops. Yet nonetheless, Uncle Walty declared, without facts, that the war was a waste of time and would be eventually lost. And America believed him. Walter Cronkite had single handedly flushed the efforts of hundreds of thousands of troops down the drain. In one fell swoop, he had undercut the foreign policy objectives of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, and set the stage for near anarchy at home.

But worst of all, he changed journalism forever, and for the worse. He imbued a generation of reporters with the notion that reporters are meant to influence government with their pens and typewriters.

Woodward and Bernstein would be next. They would bring down the Nixon Administration, only confirming that the real power to influence policy and government rested with the press. The press has been a herd of liberal zealots since.

Michael Ware is just another example of a reporter trying to influence the outcome of a global issue with his biased and slanted presentation of events afar. First, Mr. Ware and his ilk have successfully removed the moral issues from the discussion about the war. He refuses to answer the question that HH raises about the comparative differences between life in Bahgdad, pre- and post- Operation Iraqi Freedom. From Radioblogger...

"HH: Because we talked about this on CNN. Do you think Iraq is better off today, just...than it was under Saddam? Do you think that...MW: Well, I was never here under Saddam. My period during Saddam's regime was in the Kurdish North, where with U.S. air cover, they've forged their own autonomous sanctuaries. So I never lived under Saddam, and I can only imagine what the horrors were like, and what the restrictions were like. All I can tell you that life here right now is extraordinarily difficult, and there's a lot of killing going on, and there's a lot of deprivation going on, and to be able to compare that to something I never saw is a bit difficult for me.

HH: Well, do you think the Russian people were better under Krushchev than they were under Stalin? Neither of us saw Kruschev or Stalin, but both of us...

MW: Yeah, I wouldn't have a clue, you know??

This is a dodge of the simple question that usually frames all modern wars...was it the morally correct course of action? Ware avoids answering this because it would allow the moral discussion to pre-empt his morally-neutural, anti-policy messaging.

Ware, and his ilk, are framing this debate outside of the usual good vs. evil forum, and they transfer it to an emotionless policy discussion, by calling muderers, insurgents. They do it by counting the dead on TV, but not atriculating these assaults as the murders they are; carried out by homicidal robotons, wound up by depostic Islamofascists. They soft pedal the heinous crimes of the peace-loving "insurgents" in order to preserve their access to the murdering side, and to the negatively influence policy at the same time. This isn't journalism, this is being part of, and party to, the information war that Ware acknowledges is part of the equation.

"MW... Don't forget also that this is an information war. This is a propaganda war. This war, as, you know, insurgents said way back in 2003, isn't going to be won on the battlefield. It's going to be won on the air waves. It turns out it's going to be won or lost on the internet. So these things become critically important."

Ware's job is to report the facts, if he is influenced in his reporting simply to retain access to the opposition, then he is, by defaulting on his journalistic obligations, part of the opposition.He recognizes that the information war is a huge part of the current struggle, and this recognition necessarily requires a balanced presentation of the facts. By ignoring the readily apparent morality issue, there is an imbalance in the information war...of which, he is an active part. This is called bias where I come from.

Walter Cronkite saddled us forever with a generation, possibly generations, of reporters who actively chose to influence government via their reporting. They are drawn to the power of the Cronkite model, and believe that their immortality lies with toppling an Administration that they oppose. They hope to be revered within their circles as the power players they desire to be.

They forget that in their quest they undermine the efforts of our troops in the field. They undermine the approved policies of our government. They forget that they undermine the will of the people, and that in the process they undermine the very democracy that gives them the freedom to report as they please...even if it is blindly biased.

Hugh Hewitt had a very enlightening conversation yesterday on his show with Michael Ware, Australian-born journalist associated with Time magazine. Mr. Ware has spent much of his time embedded with Iraqi insurgents. That’s all fine and good, in a sense of getting the complete story. But when the people on whom a reporter is reporting threaten said reporter’s life, it makes the situation extraordinarily ripe for bias. Yet he claims that bias is non-existent in his reporting.

Gee, I dunno – if a crazed militant threatened to kill me because of what I choose to write about him, it might have an effect on how I portray events. What about you?

Now, if members of the U.S. military threatened to cap embedded reporters if they didn’t say the right things, you might have balanced reporting. It’d be non-factual, but at least it’d be non-factual on both sides of the fight, eh?

Mr. Ware is obviously a very brave and very competent reporter, doing the best he can under extremely difficult circumstances. I commend his efforts. However, it should go without saying that death threats by a reporter's subject matter need to be taken in to consideration when determining whether or not “the whole story” is being told.

Monday, March 27, 2006

Major MikeSomething subtle happened after 11/11/18. There was a quiet shift in warfighting strategies and battlefield tactics. This shift, prodded by the meatgrinding that was the hallmark of WWI, and had begun with the use of the tank in compromising the Hindenberg line at Cambrai in November of 1917, would be understood by few. It would, however be grasped by enough military planners and tacticians that it would set the stage for all of the fighting that occurred in WWII.

Naval warfare was quietly, yet completely revolutionized with the advent of the aircraft carrier and its successful operational integration in the 1920s by the US Navy. Modern maneuver warfare blossomed out of Germany, England and the US, as faster, more maneuverable, and more heavily armed tanks could be built and refined. The lessons of the failure in Gallipoli were refined and honed by the US Marine Corps as amphibious warfare became a viable operational scheme.

Still, the start, conduct, and the conclusion of WWII would be understood by few. How could Germany run all over Europe? How could we be attacked at Pearl Harbor? Those who asked these questions, missed the paradigm shift that occurred in the twenty years that had elapsed since the end of the Great War.

Many also missed the paradigm shift that occurred once the Bomb had been dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki…the shift into the Cold War, Mutually Assured Destruction, and limited war.

Clinton missed the shift post-Desert Storm...he showed little appreciation for the fact that we swept another army off the field in a matter of days. The Dems are still missing this shift. They do not understand the mettle of our forces, and still believe this is the same force of the Carter Malaise. The Press is the same...they feel our forces will return to dope smoking and fragging once they "realize" that they will inevitably lose this war. What they still miss is that our forces are no longer get a sense of worth from what they read in the press, but what they are able to see for themselves on the battlefield. There is no longer a need for "good press," they have little regard for what the media prints or airs anyway.

Each paradigm shift missed, each equally real in the end.

Our press is stuck in the last paradigm. The paradigm of the Clinton Administration…the pre-9/11 paradigm. The paradigm of hollow action, unequal and ineffective response, terror as a law enforcement problem, the paradigm of turning a blind eye to the threat in favor of a nice warm feeling at home.

After 9/11 the counter-terrorism paradigm changed forever. Passive inaction had to be replaced with aggressive attack. Deflecting light blows had to be substituted with preventing additional serious attacks. And ineffective, high visibility responses (cruise missile salvos) had to be replaced with troops in contact with the enemy…wherever we found him.What the press continually misses with their shallow “war” coverage and their simple analyses is that this IS going to be a long drawn out affair. We may be able to change that through aggressive action, or that time may be shortened by factors outside of our control…possibly Muslim mothers refusing to sacrifice their homicidal sons for a few despotic Islamofascists who don’t have the courage to strap on a bomb for Allah as they encourage others to do so. No matter.

This war must now be won by destroying the terrorists before they make more IEDs, bomb vests, or homicidal runs on mosques after prayers. This means hunting them down in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, and wherever the move to. They have the mobility to move from one country to another rapidly. We need to respond. Our lame press and our weaker Dems, need to understand that this is a fact, and beyond our control at the moment, and that the only way to gain control is to gain the initiative.

Initiative is gained through surprise, superior intelligence, aggressive surveillance, and attack. And because of the nature of the world today…these activities necessarily HAVE to be taking place all over the globe simultaneously…not one country at a time. A single front in this war will only give the enemy room to out maneuver us, and room for further devastating attacks.

Regardless of how the press sees it, or how the unhinged left is using the war for its purposes…the paradigm has changed, and no amount of slanted reporting or political wrangling can change that. Our best protection lies in our ability to project our defense across the globe, rapidly and effectively.

We are in a new age, and the 60’s style reporting and rhetoric can’t change that, but it will make us more vulnerable to attack. Leave the strategy and tactical application of that strategy where it belongs…with selfless individuals, who truly care about the well-being of this nation. Don't leave it with the counter-culture types who would defend us with slogans, signs, marches, and biased reporting…we’ve been there before. Didn’t work.

Please excuse the simplicity here, but bear with me. Mike, you've inspired some more thought.

This may be the "well, duh!" statement of all time, but i'm seeing a world-history societal/tribal pattern emerge here, involving consolidation of power, conquest of an "enemy", decadence, and destruction. It seems that everything about world history is all about that pattern. It applies to Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Muslims, Mayans, Vatican, Florentines, Spanish, Portugese, English, French . . . until the United States of America.

The ideals codified in our laws specifically de-emphasize, if not outright abolish, consolidation of power. The Founders knew that it was the beginning of the cycle noted above. Abandon the beginning and the cycle would never begin. Seemingly paradoxically, respect and honor of each individual is what Unites us - not ethnic, tribal or religious sectarianism.

So, are we an anomaly? Did we really interrupt/bypass this pattern? Clearly, the pattern did not stop when we came on the scene. Witness the Napoleonic French, Austro-Hungarians, Germans, Soviets, etc.

The fine line we walk is in honoring the individual AND uniting the group. Place too much emphasis on the group, and you get oppression. Too much emphasis on the individual, and you get anarchy.

So now we find ourselves wedged between two totalitarianisms - Islamic Fascism and Transnational Socialism. The former wishes a return to the historic pattern, while the latter mistakenly believes it, like the United States, to be a break from pattern. In the sociopolitical spectrum, which is really somewhat of a circle rather than a line, the two totalitarianisms are, consciously and subconsciously, finding ways to become allies in the destruction of Liberal Democracy.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Major MikeI was listening to the conversation between Hugh Hewitt and Victor Davis Hansen today on the HH Show, and their discussion touched slightly on a comparison between the fall of the Roman Empire, and the current polar-metric political reality in the US today.

I believe they have hit upon a comparison that is valid.

Is our democracy at a perilous point in its history? Is it likely to fail in the foreseeable future? And, can its fall be prevented, in light of the significant internal criticisms of the liberal left?

While the Roman Empire can claim significant status for almost ten centuries, and our democracy is only two centuries old, I think the comparison is on target and valid. I believe that the technological forces at work in the world today, the substitution of terror for direct combat, and rampant political opportunism world wide, set the stage for ever shorter, grand culture, “empires.”

The new speed-of-light information age, including this blogging medium, act as accelerants in the demise of grand cultures. Not only can reams of positive ideas and thoughtful philosophies be shared and disseminated near instantaneously, but evil and negative forces can avail themselves of the very same mediums, yet for very different purposes.

What used to take months by horse or donkey, now can cover the same distance in milliseconds. Compressing the information exchange timeline, will, necessarily, act as an accelerant in the demise of governments…compressing governmental longevity along the same scale.

Opposition can now be mustered in rapid fashion with a minimum of physical effort. Usually the organizational effort of the opposition would be a physically daunting task taking years, decades or centuries. Today, armies of opponents can be organized instantaneously with all the effort it takes to open a Coke. This leaves the opposition strong and viable for the decisive moment…much less likely to be on the battlefield then in years past, but if they win the message race, they will be successful nonetheless.

The faster the information flows, the quicker and “empire” will fail.

The culture itself can also provide the source of its own demise. Despotic regimes are notoriously short lived, and almost always personality dependent. They are vulnerable because dictators and despots rarely meet the needs of the masses, or they become so unstable their neighbors are forced to take action to preserve their own cultures.

Democracies provide the key to their demise from within. Freedom of thought, speech, and expression, will ultimately lead to the demise of even the strongest democratic state…because the opposition is un-tethered. The speed that information can be exchanged today provides an unparalleled level of organizational ability to the opposition. Despotic regimes only last because of tight, brutal, central control. Democracies will only last with the responsible participation of the citizens. Once the opposition is “unhinged,” AND connected, the democracy is vulnerable to the despotic whims of the blinded, idea-centric opposition…the health of the state is in jeopardy, relegated in importance behind the need of a particular party to regain control.

Throw in an unabashedly biased press, and these blinded forces are a powerful accelerant that would make Santa Ana winds look like a gentle breeze during fire season in SoCal. Our democracy is certainly vulnerable to a shortened existence because of its inherent freedoms, and also because of the technology of the day.

Another modern invention, terrorism, can also act as an accelerant in the demise of a democracy, if the citizens cower in fear, are blinded by their narrow political philosophies, and fail to recognize that the paradigm of war was changed forever by 9/11…as seems to be the case with the “unhinged” press and the “unhinged” left. The weapon of terror is a combat multiplier when applied in cultures that are paralyzed in fear, or fail to take its potential seriously.

Weak-willed cultures are vulnerable to the weapons of terror; strong, confident cultures are not. As we become increasingly intolerant of adversity, and less adept at hard work and sacrifice, we become increasingly vulnerable to horrific by-products of terrorism. Many believe that we can isolate ourselves from terror and continue to enjoy the “High Life”, by acquiescing in the short term on minor issues. If we ignore it, we aren’t delaying the next, inevitable attack, we are accelerating it, and contributing to the demise of our culture at the same time.

Democracies rely on a healthy exchange of ideas, working within the guidelines established by their guiding documents for their health and longevity. Political hackery, opportunism, and the unhinged quest for power will ultimately yield, not power, but vulnerability.

Keep your political philosophies, maintain a healthy opposition to policies that you disagree with, speak your mind, vote, run for office…use every tool available within a democracy, but don’t destroy the very institution that provides those opportunities, simply because you disagree with a party or a President. Those that bombed NYC will not leave us alone if we have a Democrat President. They are waiting to exploit the inherent weaknesses of our democracy in order to gain control of our culture, and an unbalanced opposition, enhanced by a manipulating press, will only bolster their gains. Responsible use of our political opportunities and freedoms (speech, press, expression) is what ultimately guarantees our longevity…misuse and abuse, as with any complex system, will ultimately lead to breakdown and failure. In order to delay the effects of information compression and terror, we must renew a healthy political dialog…otherwise we will soon join the Romans as a great, yet doomed civilization.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Unwittingly paraphrasing Melville, Charlie Sheen begs us to “Call Me Insane” as he spins a tale of the quest for his own white whale. As celebrated by the Centre For Global Research,

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, the star of current hit comedy show Two and a Half Men and dozens of movies including Platoon and Young Guns, Sheen elaborated on why he had problems believing the government's version of events.Sheen agreed that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself and prefaced his argument by quoting Theodore Roosevelt in stating,

"That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

"We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen."It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."Sheen described the climate of acceptance for serious discussion about 9/11 as being far more fertile than it was a couple of years ago.

"It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning."

The only worm that's turning in the fever swamps of Hollywood, is a Screwtape.

Sheen described his immediate skepticism regarding the official reason for the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on the day of 9/11.

"I was up early and we were going to do a pre-shoot on Spin City, the show I used to do, I was watching the news and the north tower was burning. I saw the south tower hit live, that famous wide shot where it disappears behind the building and then we see the tremendous fireball."

"There was a feeling, it just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sort of look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?

Being a legacy member of the Hollywood elite, I don't doubt Ishmael Sheen might never have flown on a small commuter jet, like a 737 or 757. But, for over 3000 people on a crisp Tuesday morning in September, they are quite real. And I watched it... ALL OF IT.

You might even Contact CBS Television, and render your appreciation for the sincere respect afforded by their representatives.

UPDATE: 03.24.06:12:01

The worm turns furiously in the colony of feverswamp moonbats. A CNN poll reflects overwhelming consensus on the subject of Ishmael's whale of a tale... on the order of 82% at present. And CNN intends to extend him credibility on Showbiz Tonight,

The response to Charlie sheen's charges of a government cover up on what really happened on 9/11. Find out who's praising him for speaking up. "Showbiz Tonight" airs live on Headline News at 7 p.m. and replays at 11 p.m.

Aye, Aye Charlie! Grab your harpoon and get in that boat. And by the way... Thank you.

Then tossing both arms, with measureless imprecations he shouted out:"Aye, aye! and I'll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn,and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition's flamesbefore I give him up. And this is what ye have shipped for,men! to chase that white whale on both sides of land, and over allsides of earth, till he spouts black blood and rolls fin out.What say ye, men, will ye splice hands on it, now? I think yedo look brave."

You might even Contact CBS Television, and render your appreciation for the sincere respect afforded by their representatives.

UPDATE: 03.25.06:06:20

Charlie gets CNN airtime to expose this conspiracy before the 'Mainstream.' As reported, he made an appearance on CNN's Showbiz Tonight with A.J. Hammer where he lashed out at the storm of criticism.

" I demand I be challenged on the facts and not on immature behavior from 20 years ago. "

Here's a fact, jackass.

Far from backing off his quest, Sheen fully intends to use his celebrity appeal to gain serious consideration for the idea that the newly elected President George Bush, with the aid of the CIA, in the late Summer of 2001, secretly planted massive amounts of explosives in upper floors of both towers of the World Trade Center in New York. Then on a crisp Tuesday morning, this secret cabal manuevered drones that "didn't look like any commercial jetliner" into the those upper floors in order to attract Network News cameras and make it look like a terrorist attack while in coordinated fashion, demolition teams ignited enough hidden exposives to destroy the structural assembly of a steel tube frame tower and kill thousands of innocent people. Meantime, other members of the cabal kidnapped hundreds of airline passengers, stole four passenger jets, killed the people, destroyed the jets charred all remains then carted them to New York, Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania to scatter the them for later detection. Oh and let's not forget about the team working in the Pentagon. But, that would have been easier, since everyone working there would obviously been in on the plot. It is the Pentagon afterall. Then, President Bush manipulated a crazy Saudi-Afghan camel hearder to claim responsibility. Charlie will make this all known.

"People want the truth and whats been offered to us resembles nothing of the sort"

Mr. Sheen... I do not care what sort of irresponsible episodes litter the sewer of your miserable soul. The reason that I do not extend your innane theory, or your very existence for that matter, any credibility is because... and listen carefully ...

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. and British troops Thursday freed three Christian peace activists in rural Iraq without firing a shot, ending a four-month hostage drama in which an American among the group was shot to death and dumped on a Baghdad street. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the U.S. military spokesman, said the hostages were being held by a "kidnapping cell," and the operation to free the captives was based on information from a man captured by U.S. forces only three hours earlier.

"We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end."

One contributor to the CPT comments page (Matt L.), takes the group appropriately to task,

"Many readers note that the CPT statement refers to the hostages' "release" instead of their rescue. Reader Matt L. writes to CPT:Congratulations on the safe return of your activists. I'm sorry they did not all make it home safely. I read your press release relating the "release" of the activists; please note that they were not released, they were rescued. The term release implies that their captors let them go. You know that is not true, they were rescued by a team of American and British soldiers who risked their lives to free people whom apparently have no gratitude for their actions. It is one thing to be against war and the actions of our military (I'm not justifying that position, just acknowledging your right to it), but another to deny when they SAVED YOUR ASS!!!! Are you so insecure in your position that you think even acknowledging your people were rescued, not "released" would undermine your whole message that the military serves no useful purpose? Actually, I think you are correct in your assumption, so I guess you should stick to your story lest any of your supporters start to use logic and reason to dissect your beliefs. Where would you be then? I guess you might have to begrudgingly join the rest of society who realizes that a strong military is the best defense of a free nation against tyrants and terrorists who are out to destroy us and our way of life. God bless you, and I hope you quit sending your hippies to WAR regions risking not only their lives but the lives of the soldiers who end up having to secure their "release" by RESCUING them."

Indeed! Most of us feel tremendous pride for the professional character and profound virtue of the modern Western sentinel. The wealth of character and constitution required to risk their lives and waste their efforts to rescue people who despise them, is beyond the comprehension of most... and certainly of the misguided souls of the CPT.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Although I missed it (having cancelled cable over a year ago) Hugh Hewitt went head to head to head last night on CNN with MSM pundits debating the ongoing negative coverage of the War in Iraq and the GWOT. Appearing on Anderson Cooper's show, Hugh was booked against two journalists from Baghdad, including Time's Michael Ware. His fundamental point was about as blunt and accurate as it gets.

... a large portion of the American public doesn't trust MSM coverage of Iraq because MSM coverage of Iraq almost always punts on context.

I concluded by asserting that some of the contempt for American media which is widely felt in the USA is rooted in the belief, widely shared, that MSM is invested in the failure of the Iraq invasion and in the idea that President Bush's policy is a catastrophe. MSM seems to be rooting for Iraq to turn out badly, and this does not sit well with the average American.

Contempt is right! The fact is, a vast percentage of the American people no longer trust MSM coverage on any subject, for the exact same reason. Collectively, they maintain a near malevolent lack of objectivity lending toward catastrophe. Admittedly, there is no abject conspiracy to spin events in a negative fashion. Their's is a common disdain for this Administration specifically and Conservatives in general. Its stench was present from the first day after the 2000 election, and stinks infinitely worse today. And it taints all subsequent coverage of every subject large and small, foreign and domestic.For those that attempt to deny the profound bias, its worth noting that a liberal's idea of a fair fight, is to gang-bang a political opponent on air, as they tried last night with Hugh, and two days before with Laura Ingraham. Yet judging by the fact that even two Lefty's cannot stand up to one thoughtful Conservative, perhaps they understand the stakes prior to the match, and are merely attempting to level the intellectual odds so as to not be made to look like complete fools.

Nevertheless, foolish is as foolish does. On Monday, Laura appeared on the Today Show with guest co-hosted by David Gregory of White House press corp fame (or infamy as it were), and legendary Democrat operative, James Carvill (HT: Expose the Left). Neglecting for a moment, the aesthetic appeal of Conservatism as represented, versus Liberalism portrayed by spitting visage of James 'Voldemorte' Carvill, Ingraham's arguments, like Hewitt's left both biased pundits simmering in their own hyberbole stews, for all to see:

I think what we’re doing now in Iraq is maybe finally the right thing. The Iraqi military is taking over more of the battle space. If James had spent more time in Iraq and less time talking about how the administration is a disaster on every level he’d have a different view I promise you. James is a smart guy; if he were there he would see it. The Iraqi military is taking over the battle space, the Iraqi military is stepping up, the Iraqi people are starting businesses across the, across the country with all of the threats of reprisals and all of the difficulty. That stands for something. That should be celebrated and that should be covered. The IEDs, yeah, cover it, cover the bombs, cover the difficulty but give a broad picture of what’s happening in that country. It’s a disservice to our troops and it’s a disservice to everything that this country’s about.

Clearly shaken by the flavor of the previous day's exchange, NBC doubled down today, as NewsBusters reports,

On this morning's Today show, a defensive NBC asked whether it is doing a good job reporting on Iraq, and - surprise! - the Peacock Network assured itself and its viewers that indeed it is. If anything, Today told us, the situation in Iraq is even worse than the MSM portray it. You might say NBC's position is that its coverage is not negative enough.

Ingraham's gutsy appearance took on national momentum. Laura discussed it at length during her own syndicated radio show. Rush Limbaugh offered some interesting commentary, and Ingraham made an evening appearance on the O'Reilly Factor. At one point, Ingraham mentioned that it was her viewing yesterday of a report by NBC's Richard Engel, from the proverbial Green Zone balcony, that sparked some of her sentiment.NBC fired back this morning, and featured the very same Engel in doing so.

Hosting the segment was Gregory, sitting in for Matt Lauer. He kicked things off asking "is the U.S. media focusing too much on the negative and ignoring the positive stories in Iraq?" Gregory then threw it to Engel in Baghdad, who began by alleging that there are "a lot of myths and misperceptions about what reporters are doing and are not doing here in Iraq."

The Mainstream media in general attempted to double down as well, launching itself into a full defensive lockdown of its current coverage of the GWOT. Standing firm, and in curious lock step, cable and network News personalities have gathered to the public defense of one another and the nature and flavor of their coverage. Curious, I say, for entities ostensibly in competition with one another. No?! The invitation by CNN to Mr. Hewitt was just another attempt to cover the damage wrecked by Laura. What CNN achieved it would seem, judging by the soundbites, is more direct damage for them to control. The American public bears witness to the MSM's brand of reporting for the purpose of agitation and their propagation of so called fact. They see the bullying of the Carvill's and Ware's and detest it in nature as well as in practice. They recognize hectoring in the hideous persona of Helen Thomas... hideous for what manner of hatred it purveys. They know absurdity when they hear Chris Matthews. Its all rendered obvious, by actions like these. And yet the Old Busted Media remains wholly subservient as an entity to the dominant and self-sustaining bias that pervades all personal aspects of its public persona. It is a condition that will remain until physically extracted, or biologically spent. For like toothpaste on a festering cavity, no amount of truth applied in the form of the Hewitts or the Ingrahams can be applied to penetrate or repair the rot that spreads to the root.And America has grown tired of the ache.

UPDATE: 03.24.06:08:29Welcome Hewitt fans. Enjoy the post. And while we have your attention, have a look around. A couple of new posts of interests include, a quick review of the overwhelming gratitude of Christian Peacemakers upon the rescue of their volunteers in Iraq ( read: Pride and Disgust... ). And of course by now who hasn't heard of Charlie Sheen's odd foray into the fever swamps where What is Being Left is all worm, no dirt ( read: Ishmael Sheen... ). And finally, there are few key updates to help puncuate the point about the overwhelming bias of the Old Busted Media.

Western Society has reached the point, which we are all somehow instinctively aware, that "truth" and "fact" can no longer be defitively identified. So much semi factual-information is thrown at us simultaneously that we MUST process it through our own filters of belief and morality as quickly as possible in order to make sense of our world. Outright facts become ambiguous. So by necessity (in clarity and time) of the information consumer and by necessity (in bias and expediency) of the information purveyor, facts can no longer be pure facts. We simply don't have the time anymore to *really* figure things out for ourselves.

Supplant longstanding moral compasses with alternative morality and the world can be re-defined. To those that wish to hasten that paradigm: beware the destruction of the moral traditions of your society. Don't come crying to me when, in spite of your quest to redefine (yet somehow maintain) morality, you discover that Morality no longer exists. And a vacuum of Morality provides a perfect opportunity for Morality mandated by ambitious soothsayers.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

The Anchoress is reporting that Al Qaeda communications traffic is at it’s highest level since before 9/11. Her commentary indicates that an attack may be quickly forthcoming.

This may be a good time to revisit a previous post about the next terrorist attack and resulting political opportunism.

Allow me to summarize/speculate to the current situation:

The attack will be Bush’s fault, plain and simple. The Bush-bashing meme will be that Iraq was a useless distraction that made even more of "them" mad, and that the huge holes in our security infrastructure (which Bush wasn't smart enough to plug) allowed these bumbling-yet-misguided Pakleds to wreak such horrible destruction. Look for impeachment ferver to reach a fevered pitch. Then brace yourself for the next attack while we're licking our wounds and pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

It is useful to note that Al Qaeda planned a brilliant operation in the 1990’s, executed it nearly flawlessly on 9/11/01. Only a few courageous airline passengers prevented an even worse catastrophe to the nation’s leadership infrastructure.

Al Qaeda and their Islamicist brothers-in-arms are creative, motivated, and very dangerous. Islamic militants are the most dangerous enemy we have ever faced. The President is NOT the enemy. I can't be any clearer than that.

The strategy of Liberty as Alternative to Despot-Induced Militancy is long-term, while terrorist strikes are short term tactics meant to derail that strategy and force an alternate long-term strategy of War With Islam.

So when the going gets tough, please don’t forget that the only cure for Militancy is Liberty.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Mr.AtosOkay, admittedly this is a little inside baseball, but what the hell. I shant be criticized for commenting on my own profession from time to time. I like to think I'm politically attuned... but, not obsessed. That being said, I just received a head's up from a colleague that the world's most popular digital search engine (/memory hole) had acquired one of the most popular architectural modeling platforms. From Ask.com, Tuesday, Google acquires SketchUp.

@Last Software today announced that it has been acquired by Google. The company is reassuring users that it will continue on the path it was previously traversing to help 3D architects, builders, woodworkers, gamers, and students. The SketchUpteam got to know some Google employees while they were developing the Google Earth Plugin for SketchUp, which ultimately led to the acquisition. "This is one of those wonderful win-win situations; it would have been impossible for us to feel good about this acquisition if we didn't feel our culture, our users and our mission would be in good hands." Google's resources will allow SketchUp to serve its current users better, and Google's reach will allow the company to expose many more people to its 3D software. "'3D for Everyone' is becoming a reality; we're bringing the '3D' part; Google's contributing the 'Everyone.'"

This is quite interesting, although I don't yet know for what reason. Two of the heaviest hitters in the 3D modeling world have been traditionally, AutoDesk (The IBM of digital design), and AutoDesSys (The Howard Roark of 3D modeling). Autodesk offers products like AutoCad, 3D Studio Viz, Lightscape, Maya, Revit and an array of other tools and services. AutoDesSys offering Form Z, has pioneered the field of 3d modelling since the early 90's silently guiding the industry in its wake. Other tools have since entered the realm, like Rhino, and assorted proprietary platforms, each offering their own unique approach to 3d design. Yet, Sketch Up has seemingly surpassed them all making a tremendous leap in popularity in recent years for its ease of use and relative affordability. It is now arguably among the most pervasive 3D modeling tools in architectural design, despite being little more than a clumsy version of Form Z.So, the question is, what does Google want with such a platform? Where do they intend to take this new vehicle? Or where do they hope it will take them? This statement from Sketch-Up's Weblog offers a littel clarification from their end...

WHAT'S NEW? Well, about the biggest thing ever: we’ve been Googled. That’s right, Google Inc. has acquired @Last Software… so you might have just spit your coffee all over your keyboard, or you’re rolling your eyes thinking this is another one of my April Fool’s jokes. Believe me, we’re still having a hard time believing it ourselves, but it’s real — we are now Google!

WHAT??! Wow…where to start? You have to be wondering what this means for SketchUp. Are we going to give up on design and all the cool new features and products we have in the pipeline? No way! In fact, the mission doesn’t change at all. We’re all about enabling users to express themselves in 3D and share their vision with others. Architects, builders, woodworkers, gamers, students and my Uncle Bob all want basically the same thing: the most intuitive tools to help them create and share their 3D dreams. So we’ll stay the course. (Only now we have just a smidge more horsepower...)I can't stress this enough: the 3D world just got a huge boost, so please don't worry about SketchUp or our mission. Think about it this way: we haven't traded in the Honda for a Porsche; we've strapped a rocket to the Honda. SketchUp is still SketchUp, but now it will go places it couldn't possibly have gone before.

Oh the Places it will go! But, where? And Why?

It seems like an odd diversion for them, does it not? Why would the internet giant be interested in 3D digital modeling for architecture, industrial design and gaming… unless they have zeroed in on an as yet unrecognized trend in the realm of information exchange. Google had recently acquired a large tract of land east of Portland, deep in the Gorge in a town called The Dalles. There they intend to build a new research campus, here in the pacific northwest. Might Google see Microsoft in the same way that Microsoft saw IBM in the 80’s? And if so, what does a popular yet up and coming 3D modeling platform have to do with that vision?Speculation is welcome... if not encouraged.